How much participation is enough?: a comparison of six participatory design projects in terms of outcomes

This paper considers the relationship between depth of participation (i.e., the effort and resources invested in participation) versus (tangible) outcomes. The discussion is based on experiences from six participatory research projects of different sizes and durations all taking place within a two year period and all aiming to develop new digital technologies to address an identified social need. The paper asks the fundamental question: how much participation is enough? That is, it challenges the notion that more participation is necessarily better, and, by using the experience of these six projects, it asks whether a more light touch or 'lean' participatory process can still achieve good outcomes, but at reduced cost. The paper concludes that participatory design researchers could consider 'agile' principles from the software development field as one way to streamline participatory processes.

[1]  Jon Whittle,et al.  Speedplay, managing the other edge of innovation , 2013 .

[2]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Bridging the Gap Between Politics and Techniques: On the next practices of participatory design , 2010, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Participatory design: the third space in HCI , 2002 .

[4]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  PROTEE 2000. Final Report. European Commission , 2000 .

[5]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Taxonomy of PD Practices: A Brief Practitioner's Guide , 1993, Commun. ACM.

[6]  Pieter W. G. Bots,et al.  A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons , 2010 .

[7]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Participation in design things , 2008, PDC.

[8]  Nicola J. Bidwell,et al.  Community Consensus: Design Beyond Participation , 2012, Design Issues.

[9]  Gunnar Ellingsen,et al.  Lightweight methods in heavyweight organizations , 2008, PDC.

[10]  E. Hand,et al.  Citizen science: People power , 2010, Nature.

[11]  Bonnie M. MacNeil,et al.  Anxiety in Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders. , 2009 .

[12]  K. Nygaard,et al.  The Trade Unions ‐ New users of research , 1975 .

[13]  Rachel Menzies,et al.  Developing for autism with user-centred design , 2011, ASSETS.

[14]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Co-creation and the new landscapes of design , 2008 .

[15]  J. Glicken Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls , 2000 .

[16]  Ellen Balka,et al.  Broadening Discussion About Participatory Design: A reply to Kyng , 2010, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[17]  S. White,et al.  Examining Shared and Unique Aspects of Social Anxiety Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder Using Factor Analysis , 2012, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[18]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Systems Development and Trade Union Activities , 1980 .

[19]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Planning and control from the perspective of labour: A short presentation of the demos project☆ , 1978 .

[20]  Karlheinz Kautz,et al.  Participatory Design Activities and Agile Software Development , 2010, Human Benefit through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research.

[21]  Per-Anders Hillgren,et al.  Participatory design and "democratizing innovation" , 2010, PDC '10.

[22]  Ken Schwaber,et al.  Agile Project Management with Scrum , 1980 .

[23]  Craig Larman,et al.  Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's Guide , 2003 .

[24]  R.D. Acosta,et al.  A case study of applying rapid prototyping techniques in the Requirements Engineering Environment , 1994, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering.

[25]  Tim Mansfield,et al.  Extreme Participation - Moving Extreme Programming Towards Participatory Design , 2002 .